Cheap PLASTIC used in D600 is "shedding" all over the inside!
 

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:04:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

What else could it be?

Anynumber of 1,000 things inside a very complex device. To assume it's
the frame material is ridiculous.

Still paranoid, eh?

Cheap PLASTIC used in D600 is "shedding" all over the inside!
 

In article
,
RichA wrote:

What else could it be?

Anynumber of 1,000 things inside a very complex device. To assume it's
the frame material is ridiculous.

Still paranoid, eh?

We don't really know, do we?

you certainly don't.

If it's residual debris from unclean
assembly, then Nikon looks bad. If it's an ongoing shedding of dust
and pieces due to wear of ill-fitting mechanism parts, Nikon looks
bad. If it's some kind of lubricant that being flung around because
of over-lubricating or poor design, Nikon looks bad.
So tell us what you think it is?

it's not because they chose plastic.

Cheap PLASTIC used in D600 is "shedding" all over the inside!
 

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:11:06 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: On Mar 12, 2:28*pm, Bowser wrote:
: On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:04:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: wrote:
:
: What else could it be?
:
: Anynumber of 1,000 things inside a very complex device. To assume it's
: the frame material is ridiculous.
:
: Still paranoid, eh?
:
: We don't really know, do we? If it's residual debris from unclean
: assembly, then Nikon looks bad. If it's an ongoing shedding of dust
: and pieces due to wear of ill-fitting mechanism parts, Nikon looks
: bad. If it's some kind of lubricant that being flung around because
: of over-lubricating or poor design, Nikon looks bad.
: So tell us what you think it is?

I think it's Canon looking less bad.

Bob

Cheap PLASTIC used in D600 is "shedding" all over the inside!
 

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:11:06 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Mar 12, 2:28*pm, Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:04:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

What else could it be?

Anynumber of 1,000 things inside a very complex device. To assume it's
the frame material is ridiculous.

Still paranoid, eh?

We don't really know, do we? If it's residual debris from unclean
assembly, then Nikon looks bad. If it's an ongoing shedding of dust
and pieces due to wear of ill-fitting mechanism parts, Nikon looks
bad. If it's some kind of lubricant that being flung around because
of over-lubricating or poor design, Nikon looks bad.
So tell us what you think it is?

I have no idea, but I won't assume that it's due to any specific
material. Why jump to conclusions?

Nikon already looks bad, regardless of the cause. Both of their new FF
bodies have issues, and they can't seem to solve them. I'll stick with
my GH3.

Cheap PLASTIC used in D600 is "shedding" all over the inside!
 

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:00:46 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:11:06 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: On Mar 12, 2:28*pm, Bowser wrote:
: On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:04:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: wrote:
:
: What else could it be?
:
: Anynumber of 1,000 things inside a very complex device. To assume it's
: the frame material is ridiculous.
:
: Still paranoid, eh?
:
: We don't really know, do we? If it's residual debris from unclean
: assembly, then Nikon looks bad. If it's an ongoing shedding of dust
: and pieces due to wear of ill-fitting mechanism parts, Nikon looks
: bad. If it's some kind of lubricant that being flung around because
: of over-lubricating or poor design, Nikon looks bad.
: So tell us what you think it is?

I think it's Canon looking less bad.


Well, we all know Canons are better, don't we?

;-)

Cheap PLASTIC used in D600 is "shedding" all over the inside!
 

Bowser wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:00:46 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

I think it's Canon looking less bad.

Well, we all know Canons are better, don't we?

Better for whom, better according to which standard and and
better by what margin?

;-)

:-

-Wolfgang